Real talk, is there some benefit to an analog clock that would prevent them from all being replaced by digital ones? Being able to know exactly the time in a moment’s glance seems better to me.
They’re certainly not better looking than a digital one, considering most of the ones used in schools are just the cheapest and most basic version they can get.
Being able to know exactly the time in a moment’s glance seems better to me.
That seems more like a pro for analogue to me. It’s much easier with an analogue clock since you get a visual presentation of time. Whenever someone tells me a time, I have to first imagine an analogue clock to understand what that time means.
They convey time instantly, without reading. You don’t even need the numbers for them to work. It’s like showing a progress bar versus just giving the percentage as a number.
An analog clock is just three sets of loading bars with their ends glued together. You can tell geometrically what proportion of each division of time (day, hour, and minute) are spent and what proportion remains. You don’t even need the numbers.
If you need stopwatch-level precision, sure, a digital display is superior. But how often do you need that? Most of what I need clocks for is, “Oh, it’s about a quarter to noon, I have a lunch appointment to get to”.
It is my personal preference to visually intuit that the clock hands are roughly separating the hour into 3/4 spent and 1/4 remaining and use that to know how much time I have left to the hour, rather than read the symbols “42” on the display and manually do the mental gymnastics of “well that’s basically 45, which is three quarters of the way to 60 minutes”.
Genuine question, how precise do you need the time to be? Maybe you actually need precise readings for something. I figured that “on the 5 min marker”, “slightly before/behind the 5 min marker” and “in the middle of two 5 min markers” is precise enough for me. And I I see a hand at these positions faster than reading numbers.
I think for precise readings (eg. entering the time I start working), the speed is the same for me, but obviously I didn’t test this.
I also think looking at the time but then still not knowing what time it is happens less on an analog clock.
I don’t know how much personal preference influences this though.
It proves to be somewhat useful as an example when trying to teach fractions and decimals, something we are absolutely terrible at teaching. Incomprehension of fraction to decimal conversion is why 90% of people who say they are bad at math, say they are bad at math.
Clockwise, counter clockwise. Classic time shorthand (IE, half past ten, quarter to eleven). Time estimations (easy to see a half minute on a analog clock, digital just goes from 2:00 to 2:01)
I think analog clock displays are more elegant, and are overall nicer than digital. Personal preference though.
Incomprehension of fraction to decimal conversion is why 90% of people who say they are bad at math, say they are bad at math
I feel called out. I was in high-school Calculus (11th grade) before I “truly” understood fractions. Like, I honestly somehow managed to make it to Calculus without knowing how to add and subtract fractions without a calculator. Thought I was dumb in math until 9th grade algebra, and didn’t start becoming a bit of a math nerd until Calculus
Sounds like you just didn’t understand. Each hour of the 12 on the clock takes up 30° of the circle, and we measure time in cycles of hours, minutes, seconds that all match up well with the 360° of a circle.
Cutting pizza would also teach kids a geometrical understanding of how circles work, I don’t see how that translates at all to being innate to reading a clock. I know tons of people who can read a clock who suck at math. It seems like an incredibly weak assertion.
I prefer analogue clocks because I tend to have time blindness with ADHD, and it’s easier to see at a glance how much time is visually left in an hour or how much time is passing with an analogue clock. Just knowing that “15 min left” isn’t really as effective as being able to see a visual representation of “15 min left”, for example.
Real talk, is there some benefit to an analog clock that would prevent them from all being replaced by digital ones? Being able to know exactly the time in a moment’s glance seems better to me.
They’re certainly not better looking than a digital one, considering most of the ones used in schools are just the cheapest and most basic version they can get.
Power requirements maybe? Longevity?
That seems more like a pro for analogue to me. It’s much easier with an analogue clock since you get a visual presentation of time. Whenever someone tells me a time, I have to first imagine an analogue clock to understand what that time means.
Honestly that’s just about being used to one versus the other. For me it’s basically the other way around
They convey time instantly, without reading. You don’t even need the numbers for them to work. It’s like showing a progress bar versus just giving the percentage as a number.
An analog clock is just three sets of loading bars with their ends glued together. You can tell geometrically what proportion of each division of time (day, hour, and minute) are spent and what proportion remains. You don’t even need the numbers.
If you need stopwatch-level precision, sure, a digital display is superior. But how often do you need that? Most of what I need clocks for is, “Oh, it’s about a quarter to noon, I have a lunch appointment to get to”.
It is my personal preference to visually intuit that the clock hands are roughly separating the hour into 3/4 spent and 1/4 remaining and use that to know how much time I have left to the hour, rather than read the symbols “42” on the display and manually do the mental gymnastics of “well that’s basically 45, which is three quarters of the way to 60 minutes”.
I’ll admit this benefit is marginal.
I think that’s an interesting way to look at it. I find it easier to do the mental gymnastics, as you call it.
Genuine question, how precise do you need the time to be? Maybe you actually need precise readings for something. I figured that “on the 5 min marker”, “slightly before/behind the 5 min marker” and “in the middle of two 5 min markers” is precise enough for me. And I I see a hand at these positions faster than reading numbers.
I think for precise readings (eg. entering the time I start working), the speed is the same for me, but obviously I didn’t test this.
I also think looking at the time but then still not knowing what time it is happens less on an analog clock.
I don’t know how much personal preference influences this though.
It proves to be somewhat useful as an example when trying to teach fractions and decimals, something we are absolutely terrible at teaching. Incomprehension of fraction to decimal conversion is why 90% of people who say they are bad at math, say they are bad at math.
Teaching someone how to read a clock for the sole purpose of using it as a math example seems like a poor use of effort.
I wouldn’t say that’s the sole purpose, just an additional purpose to being able to tell time. It’s also useful if the kid wants to be a pilot.
So what are the purposes? Nobody uses analog clocks anymore so afaict:
What am I missing? 😛
Clockwise, counter clockwise. Classic time shorthand (IE, half past ten, quarter to eleven). Time estimations (easy to see a half minute on a analog clock, digital just goes from 2:00 to 2:01)
I think analog clock displays are more elegant, and are overall nicer than digital. Personal preference though.
I feel called out. I was in high-school Calculus (11th grade) before I “truly” understood fractions. Like, I honestly somehow managed to make it to Calculus without knowing how to add and subtract fractions without a calculator. Thought I was dumb in math until 9th grade algebra, and didn’t start becoming a bit of a math nerd until Calculus
It helps give people a geometrical understanding of the cyclic nature of time.
Lol I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think those words work the way you used them anyway
Sounds like you just didn’t understand. Each hour of the 12 on the clock takes up 30° of the circle, and we measure time in cycles of hours, minutes, seconds that all match up well with the 360° of a circle.
Cutting pizza would also teach kids a geometrical understanding of how circles work, I don’t see how that translates at all to being innate to reading a clock. I know tons of people who can read a clock who suck at math. It seems like an incredibly weak assertion.
Making any excuse to not learn how analog clocks work is what’s really a weak assertion. It’s not that fucking hard.
Can’t do that with a digital display, can you?
It literally says on the image you sent how to do it with a digital display (besides, it’s pretty reasonable)
Not if you can’t imagine analogue clock.
Their method is “imagine a clock face showing that hour” how are you going to do that if you don’t know how analogue clocks work?
I prefer analogue clocks because I tend to have time blindness with ADHD, and it’s easier to see at a glance how much time is visually left in an hour or how much time is passing with an analogue clock. Just knowing that “15 min left” isn’t really as effective as being able to see a visual representation of “15 min left”, for example.
You can use them as a crude compass next time you find yourself unexpectedly in the wilderness.